Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; Revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) Addressing Sulfur Dioxide in Harris County

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[TX83-1-7340a; FRL-6349-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;

Texas; Revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) Addressing

Sulfur Dioxide in Harris County

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We are approving two revised Commission Orders modifying the

sulfur dioxide (SO2) allowable emissions at two stationary

sources in Harris County, Texas. The Orders are separate, enforceable

agreements between Simpson Pasadena Paper Company, Lyondel-Citgo

Refining Company, and the Texas Natural Resource Conservation

Commission (TNRCC). This action will incorporate these two Orders into

the federally approved State Implementation Plan (SIP). The intention

of this action is to regulate SO2 emissions in accordance

with the requirements of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (the

Act).

DATES: This action is effective on August 2, 1999 without further

notice, unless EPA receives relevant adverse comments by July 6, 1999.

If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal

of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public

that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments must be submitted to Mr. Thomas Diggs,

Chief of Air Planning Section, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite

1200 (6PD-L), Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Copies of the technical support

document are available for public review at the EPA Region 6 office

during normal business hours. Copies of documents relative to this

action are available for public inspection during normal business hours

at the following locations. The interested persons wanting to examine

these documents should make an appointment with the appropriate office

at least 24 hours before the visiting day.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Air Planning Section, 1445

Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, 6PD-L, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone

(214) 665-7214.

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, 12100 Park 35 Circle,

Austin, Texas 78753, telephone (512) 239-1461.

Documents which are incorporated by reference are available for

public inspection at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information

Center, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Petra Sanchez, Air Planning

Section, (6PD-L), Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division,

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite

1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone: (214) 665-6686.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background Information

A. What Action is EPA Taking in This Rulemaking?

B. Why Were Changes In Emission Rates Necessary?

C. What Is A SIP?

D. What Are the Procedural Requirements Texas Must Follow for

EPA Approval?

E. What Are the Health Effects Associated With This Criteria

Pollutant?

F. What Are the NAAQS for SO2?

II. Final Action

III. Administrative Requirements

I. Background Information

A. What Action Is EPA Taking in This Rulemaking?

The EPA is adopting two Agreed Commission Orders containing new

emission limits at two facilities into the Harris County SIP for

SO2. The facilities are Simpson Pasadena Paper Company

located at North Shaver Street at

[[Page 29794]]

Washburn Tunnel in Houston, Texas, and Lyondel-Citgo Refining Company,

located at 12000 Lawndale, also in Houston, Texas. Changes to the

emission limits were approved by the TNRCC through ``Agreed Commission

Orders.'' This action adopts these Orders into the SIP and makes them

federally enforceable. In the original SIP for Harris County, emission

limits were developed for thirteen non-permitted sources, including

Simpson and Lyondel. The EPA approved the Harris County SIP on March 6,

1995 (60 FR 12125), and the contents in the unrevised portions of the

SIP remain the same. The reader is referred to this Federal Register

document for additional background.

B. Why Were Changes in Emission Rates Necessary?

Lyondel-Citgo Refining Company (LCR)

The LCR revision corrects a minor technical problem found with the

calculation for the SO2 emission rate. In the original 1994,

SIP submittal, hourly LCR allowable emission rates used for dispersion

modeling calculated the annual average fuel gas rates instead of the

LCR grandfathered firing rates, resulting in a maximum fuel gas

hydrogen sulfide concentration of 160 parts per million (ppm) by

volume. The annual average fuel gas emission rates were incorrectly

converted to an hourly rate without taking into consideration

grandfathered maximum hourly limits for the emission source. Adjusting

the emission rates, however, would cause the combined emissions to rise

from 199.42 to 263.39 pounds per hour (lbs/hr). Lyondel-Citgo Refining

Company, therefore, submitted a request to modify their Agreed

Commission Order to reflect their corrected emission rates. The

request, with the supporting documentation and a revised dispersion

modeling analysis to increase the SO2 emission rates, was

further evaluated by the TNRCC and then by EPA. The analysis

demonstrates that the new emission rates from LCR will not cause a

violation of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for

SO2.

The modeling results predict worst-case concentrations for the 3-

hour, 24-hour, and annual averaging periods of 908 ug/m3,

(for the secondary 3-hour), 336 ug/m3, (for the primary 24-

hour standard) and 78 ug/m3, (for the primary annual

standard) respectively. All concentrations are below the applicable

NAAQS of 1300 ug/m3, 365 ug/m3, and 80 ug/

m3 respectively.

The Industrial Source Complex Short-Term 3 model, and 5 years of

meteorological data (i.e., 1981 through 1985) from the Houston

Intercontinental surface station and the Lake Charles upper-air station

were used for the analysis. Two emission inventories were used in the

modeling, based on the original inventory provided by HRM and its

contractor, Radian Incorporated. The second scenario used the updated

inventory submitted by LCR. The differences from the first and second

scenarios were observed, with respect to the 3-hour, 24-hour and annual

SO2 NAAQS. In addition, the differences from the first and

second scenarios were added as an increment to the original Radian

model results. The results predicted concentrations below the

SO2 NAAQS.

Simpson Pasadena Paper Company

Of the seven emission points identified in the original Commission

Order for Simpson Pasadena, the largest is the No.6 Kraft Recovery

Boiler (SN15, 400 pounds of SO2 per hour). Simpson Pasadena

submitted a request to modify their order by raising the emission limit

on the No. 6 Kraft Recovery Boiler from 400 pounds/hour (lbs/hr) to 600

lbs/hr, when Boiler No. 7 is not operating. As a result, the maximum

allowable SO2 emissions from the two furnaces would decrease

from 650 lbs/hr (400 and 250 lbs/hr, for No. 6 and No. 7, respectively)

to 600 lbs/hr for one furnace. The revised order allows for this

averaging on a permanent basis, whenever maintenance or malfunctions

occur. Simpson Pasadena, however, is still responsible for notifying

the TNRCC office whenever these temporary changes in emissions will

occur, and provide an approximate duration time.

The air quality impact analysis submitted with the SIP revision

request demonstrated that the net change in emissions from 650 lbs/hr

to 600 lbs/hr would not cause or contribute to a violation of the

SO2 NAAQS.

The modeling approach was conducted in two phases. The first phase

compared the predicted concentrations from the net change in emissions

to the applicable SO2 significance levels to determine if

the modification was significant. The impacts were above the

significance levels for the 3-hour and 24-hour averaging periods. Thus

the second phase, a full analysis, was conducted using the complete

emission inventory from the original attainment demonstration.

The modeling results predict worst-case concentrations for the 3-

hour and 24-hour averaging periods of 691 micrograms/cubic meter (ug/

m3) and 227 ug/m3, respectively. These

concentrations demonstrated they were below the applicable NAAQS.

C. What Is a SIP?

Section 110 of the Act requires states to develop air pollution

regulations and control strategies to ensure that State air quality

meets the NAAQS established by the EPA. These ambient standards are

established under section 109 of the Act and they address six criteria

pollutants: carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead, particulate

matter and sulfur dioxide.

Each State must submit these regulations and control strategies to

us for approval and incorporation into the federally enforceable SIP.

Each State has a SIP designed to protect its air quality. These SIPs

can be extensive, containing regulations, enforceable emission limits,

emission inventories, monitoring networks, and modeling demonstrations.

The Texas SIP contains various ``Agreed Commission Orders'' (Orders) to

meet the SIP requirements and other State statutory requirements. The

Orders are developed to contain specific conditions for a particular

source and can provide specific conditions such as, emission limits,

hours of operation, record keeping requirements, production rates,

compliance demonstration requirements, etc., for a particular source.

Once the Orders are adopted into the SIP, they become federally

enforceable.

D. What Are the Procedural Requirements Texas Must Follow for EPA

Approval?

The Act requires States to observe certain procedural requirements

while developing SIPs for submission to the EPA. Section 110(l) of the

Act requires that a revision to a SIP must be adopted by such State

after reasonable notice and public hearing. The EPA must also determine

whether a submittal is complete and warrants further action (see

section 110(k)(1) and 57 FR 13565). The EPA's completeness criteria for

SIP submittals are found at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part

51, appendix V. The submittal was determined to be administratively

complete by EPA through a cover letter to the Governor of Texas on

April 18, 1997.

The State of Texas held a public hearing on March 31, 1997, for

public comment on these rule revisions. The SIP revision was then

submitted by the Governor of Texas to the EPA by cover letter dated May

29, 1997. While there are no SO2 nonattainment areas in

Texas, the SIP must demonstrate

[[Page 29795]]

attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.

All State regulations and supporting information approved by the

EPA under section 110 of the Act are incorporated into the federally

approved SIP. Records of such SIP actions are maintained in the 40 CFR

part 52. The actual State regulations which were approved are not

reproduced in their entirety in the CFR but are ``incorporated by

reference,'' which means that the EPA has approved a given State

regulation with a specific effective date.

E. What Are the Health Effects Associated With This Criteria Pollutant?

Sulfur dioxide belongs to the family of sulfur oxide gases. These

gases are formed when fuel containing sulfur, such as coal and oil, is

burned and during metal smelting, and other industrial process. Sulfur

dioxide is a rapidly-diffusing reactive gas that is very soluble in

water. Sulfur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen are the major precursors

to acidic deposition (acid rain), and are associated with the

acidification of lakes and streams, corrosion of buildings and

monuments. They are also associated with reduced visibility. Sulfur

dioxide in the Houston area is emitted principally from combustion, or

processing, of sulfur-containing fossil fuels and ores. At elevated

concentrations, sulfur dioxide can adversely affect human health. The

major health concerns associated with exposure to high concentrations

of SO2 include effects on breathing, respiratory illness,

alterations in the lungs' defenses, and aggravation of existing

cardiovascular disease. Sulfur dioxide can also produce damage to the

foliage of trees and agricultural crops.

F. What Are the NAAQS for SO2?

The primary national ambient air quality standard for sulfur

oxides, measured as SO2, is 0.14 ppm, or 365 ug/

m3, averaged over a period of 24 hours and not to be

exceeded more than once per year, and an annual standard of 0.030 ppm,

or 80 ug/m3, never to be exceeded. The secondary standard

for SO2 is 0.50 ppm, or 1300 ug/m3 averaged over

a three-hour period. The secondary standard may not be exceeded more

than once per year.

II. Final Action

The EPA has evaluated the submitted Agreed Orders and their

provisions along with the modeling demonstration to support the revised

emission limits and has determined that they are consistent with the

Act, EPA regulations, and EPA policy. Therefore, the revised Agreed

Order Nos. 94-15 for Lyondel-Citgo, Refining Company, Ltd., and 94-22

for Simpson Pasadena Paper Company are being approved under section

110(k)(3) of the Act as meeting the requirements of section 110(a) and

are acceptable revisions to the SIP. The EPA is publishing this action

without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a

noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments.

However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register

publication, the EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve

as the proposal to approve the State Plan should relevant adverse

comments be filed. This rule will be effective August 2, 1999 without

further notice unless, by July 6, 1999, relevant adverse comments are

received. If EPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn

before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will

withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be

addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed action. The

EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested

in commenting on this action should do so at this time. If no such

comments are received, the public is advised that this action will be

effective August 2, 1999.

Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or

allowing or establishing a precedent for any future implementation

plan. Each request for revision to the state implementation plan shall

be considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and

environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from E.O. 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and

Review.''

B. Executive Order 12875

Under E.O. 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local, or

tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those

governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, E.O. 12875 requires EPA must provide to the OMB a

description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with

representatives of affected State, local and tribal governments, the

nature of their concerns, copies of any written communications from the

governments, and a statement supporting the need to issue the

regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to develop an

effective process permitting elected officials and other

representatives of State, local, and tribal governments ``to provide

meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals

containing significant unfunded mandates.'' Today's rule does not

create a mandate on State, local or tribal governments. The rule does

not impose any enforceable duties on these entities. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 do not apply to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13045

Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is

determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O.

12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA

has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children.

If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate

the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on

children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other

potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered

by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does not involve

decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.

D. Executive Order 13084

Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the

communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal

government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those

governments. If EPA complies by consulting, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to

provide to OMB in a separately identified section of the preamble to

the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with

representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature

of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the

regulation. In addition, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to develop an

effective process permitting elected officials and other

representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on

[[Page 29796]]

matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''

Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities

of Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section

3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq. generally

requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities

include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small

governmental jurisdictions. This final rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals

under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Act do not create any

new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is

already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not

create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the

Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal

inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The Act

forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union

Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995,

(Unfunded Mandates Act), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or final

rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated

annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate;

or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA

must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan

for informing and advising any small governments that may be

significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

The EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does

not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs

of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments

in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and

imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State,

local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from

this action.

G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally

provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating

the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,

to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the

United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and

other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior

to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a

``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

H. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review

of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for

the appropriate circuit by August 2, 1999.

Filing a petition for reconsideration with the Administrator of

this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a

petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the

effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged

later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

Lists of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by

Reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide.

Dated: April 14, 1999.

Sammuel Coleman,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

40 CFR Part 52 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart SS--Texas

2. Section 52.2270 is amended by adding paragraph (116) to read as

follows:

Sec. 52.2270 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(116) A revision to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) to

include two modified Agreed Orders limiting sulfur dioxide

(SO2) allowable emissions at two facilities in Harris

County, submitted by the Governor by cover letter dated May 29, 1997.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) TNRCC Docket No. 96-1188-AIR Order Modifying Commission Order

No. 94-15 for Lyondel-Citgo Refining Company, LTD., as adopted by the

TNRCC on June 29, 1994, and modified on July 31, 1996;

(B) TNRCC Docket No. 96-1187-AIR, Order Modifying Commission Order

No. 94-22 for Simpson Pasadena Paper Company, as adopted by the TNRCC

on June 29, 1994, and modified on July 31, 1996.

(ii) Additional material.

TNRCC submittal to the EPA dated May 29, 1997, entitled,

``Revisions to the SIP Concerning Sulfur Dioxide in Harris County.''

[FR Doc. 99-13800 Filed 6-2-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P